by Adam Hartung | Oct 1, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
In "Why Apple Can't Sell Business Laptops" Forbes gives the case to be pro-Dell. The author points out that Dell has 32% of the computer market within companies that have more than 500 employees. He then explains this happens because Dell makes machines that are constantly the next generation beyond the previous laptop – a little better, a little faster, a little cheaper. Comparing the new Lenovo Z to the Mac Air, the author concludes that anyone who sits in a corporate office, with a lot of corporate IT requirements, who wants the next small laptop would find it easiest to fit the Dell product into their work.
He's right. Which is why investors, employees, suppliers and customers should worry.
Everything described is Lock-in. Dell has focused on big IT departments, and sells products which cater to them. Dell is listening to its dominant customers. Each quarter Dell gets more dependent upon these customers – and walks further out on the PC gangplank when servicing their needs.
But, large corporations are laying off more workers than any other part of the economy. Both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of employment. They are not the "growth engine" or the companies that will lead us out of this recession. And while Dell caters to these customers, Dell is missing major shifts that are happening in how people use computers. Shifts that are already demonstrating the market for traditional laptop technology is waning.
In PC technology, people are moving away from laptops and toward netbooks. By far, netbooks have overtaken laptops as users shift how they access the web and get work done. Additionally, people are moving away from traditional computing platforms for lots of things, like email and web browsing (to name 2 big ones), and using instead mobile devices like Blackberry and iPhone. Apple appears to be very careful to not chase the netbook curve, instead appearing to advance the mobile device curve with future iPhones and a possible Tablet product.
As Dell keeps getting closer and closer to its "core" customers, its customer and technology (traditional PC) Lock-ins are making it increasingly vulnerable. When users simply stop carrying laptops, what will Dell sell them? When corporations move applications to cloud computing, and users no longer need their "heavy" laptop, where will that leave Dell?
The Forbes writer made the big mistake of measuring Dell by looking at its past – and glorifying its focus. But this points out that Dell is really very vulnerable. Technology is shifting, as are a lot of users. The author, and Dell, should spend more time looking at the competition — including solutions that aren't laptops. And they should spend more time building scenarios for 2015 to 2020 — which would surely show that having a better "corporate laptop" today is not a good predictor of future competitiveness for changing user needs.
Apple keeps looking better and smarter. Instead of going "head-to-head" with the PC makers, Apple is helping users migrate to mobile computing via different sorts of devices with better connectivity (the mobile network) and lighter interfaces. They are providing applications that support a wider variety of user needs, like GPS as a simple example, which make their devices addictive. They are pulling people toward the future, rather than trying to hold on to historical computing structures. As the shift continues, eventually we'll see corporate IT departments make this shift – just as they shifted to PCs from mainframes and minicomputers throwing IBM and DEC into the lurch. As this shift progresses, the winners will be those with the solutions for where customers are headed. And Dell doesn't have anything out there today.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 29, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Last week was big news for technology. Hewlett Packard announced it was killing the EDS brand name, pushing to make HP more of an integrated solutions company (like IBM). And Dell bought Perot Systems to launch itsfirst push into services. According to Washington Technology "HP, Dell Know They Have to Change or Die." The article talks about the dramatically shifting marketplace (love that language!), and how these two hardware oriented companies are trying to avoid the Sun Microsystems finality by getting into services. The author says the companies must "adapt or die," and "there's no sitting still." He goes on to say "it may take years," but he thinks they will transition and eventually be successful. His success forecast hinges on his belief that they must change to survive – and that will be sufficient motivation.
I love the awareness of shifting markets, and the recognition that shifts are demanding changes in these former leaders. But I don't agree with the conclusion that future success is highly likely. Because even with big acquisitions and name changes – HP and Dell haven't laid the groundwork to change. They have taken some rifle shots, but they haven't followed The Phoenix Principle and that means the odds are less than 10% they will successfully transition.
Lots of companies have tried to transition via acquisition. Heck, GM once bought EDS (and Hughes Electronics) – and look what it did for them. Just because a company buys something doesn't mean they'll change. McDonald's bought Chipotle, and then sold it despite double digit growth to fund acquisition of additional McDonald's. Just because a company needs to change its Success Formula to succeed – or even survive – is a long way from proving they will do it.
Neither HP or Dell show they are building a company for the future. Unfortunately, they look to be chasing a model built by IBM in the 1990s. Taking action in 2009 to recreate "best practices" of 15 – 20 years ago is far from creating a company positioned for success. There is no discussion of future scenario planning from either company – about technology use or changing business practices. No description of their scenarios for 2015 and 2020 – scenarios that would demonstrate very high growth and payoff from their action. To the contrary, all the discussion seems to be defensive. They are getting into services – finally – because they realize their growth has slowed and profits are declining. It's not really about the future, it's action taken by studying the rear view mirror.
Additionally, there is no discussion of any Disruptions at either company. To change organizations must attack old Lock-ins. Embedded processes – from hiring and reviews to product development and resource allocation – all exist to Defend & Extend past behavior. If these aren't attacked head-on then organizations quickly conform any potential change into something like the past. In the case of these companies, lacking a clear view of what future markets should look like, they have opted to forgo Disruptions. Mr. Gerstner attacked the sacred cows around IBM viciously in his effort to transition the company into more services. But the CEOs at HP and Dell are far less courageous.
And there's no White Space here for developing a new Success Formula aligned with market needs as they are emerging. Instead of creating an environment in which new leaders can compete in new ways, these businesses are being instructed on how to behave – according to some plan designed by someone who clearly thinks they are smarter than the marketplace. Without White Space, "the plan" is going to struggle to meet with markets that will continue to shift every bit as fast the next 2 years as they did the last year.
I have very limited expectations that these actions will increase the performance of either company. I predict organic growth will slow, as "integration" issues mount and "synergy" activities take more time than growth initiatives. They will not see a big improvement in profits, because competition is extremely severe and there is no sign these companies are introducing any kind of innovation that will leapfrog existing competitors – remember, mere size is not enough to succeed in today's marketplace. They will largely be somewhat bigger, but no more successful.
It's easy to get excited when a company makes an acquisition off the beaten path. But you must look closely at their actions and plans before setting expectations. These companies could make big changes. But that would require a lot more scenario planning, a lot more focus on emerging competitors (not the existing, well known behemoths), much more Disruption to knock back the Lock-in and White Space for building a new Success Formula. Without those actions this is going to be another acquisition followed by missed expectations, cost cutting and discussions about size that cover up declining organic growth.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 16, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
Is Google a company who's growth and innovation worry you? Not me. Which is why I was disturbed by a recent blog at Harvard Business School Publishing's web site "Google Grows Up." In this article Scott Anthony, a consultant and writer for HBS, says that he thinks Google has been immature about its innovation management, and he thinks the company needs to change it's approach to innovation. Unfortunately, his comments replay the core of outdated management approaches which lead companies into lower returns.
No doubt Google's revenues are highly skewed toward on-line ad placement. But with the market growing at more than 2x/year, and Google maintaining (or growing) share it's not surprising that such high revenues would dwarf other projects. Google created, and has remained, in the Rapids of growth by leading the market. From its Disruptive innovation, offering advertising through products like Google AdWords to people who previously couldn't afford it or manage it, allowed Google to lead a market shift for advertising. And ever since Google has implemented sustaining innovations to maintain its leadership position. That's great management. No reason to worry about a lot of revenue in ad placement today, with the market growing. Not as long as Google keeps breeding lots of new, big ideas to help grow in the future.
But Mr. Anthony flogs Google for its "unrestrained" approach to innovation. He recommends the company push hard to implement a process for innovation management – and he uses Proctor & Gamble as his role model – in order to curtail so many innovations and funnel resources to "the right" innovations. Even though he's obviously flogging his consulting, and pushing that all "good management" requires some significant stage gate management of innovation – he couldn't be more wrong.
Firstly, P&G is far from a role model for innovation. As recently discussed in this blog, the company recently said one of its major innovations was cutting prices on Tide while introducing less a less-good formulation. As commenters said loudly, this is not innovation. It's merely price cutting – taking another step on the demand/supply curve of price vs. performance. It doesn't change the shape of the curve – it doesn't help people get a far superior return – nor does it bring in new customers who's needs were not previously met.
In a Wall Street Journal article "P&G Plots Course To Turn Lackluster Tide," the CEO freely admits the company has had insufficient organic growth. Additionally, his big future opportunities are to "reposition Tide," to cut the price of Cheer by another 13% and to use Defend & Extend practices to try pushing the P&G Success Formula into other countries. Like people in China, India and elsewhere are in need of 1.5 gallon containers of laundry detergent sold through enormous stores which have big parking lots for all those cars to lug stuff home. None of these ideas have helped P&G grow, nor helped the company achieve above-average returns, nor demonstrate the company is going to be a leader for the next 10 years in new products, new distribution systems or new business models for the developed or developing world.
This urge to "grow up" is a huge downfall of business thinking. It smacks of arrogance and superiority by those who say it – like they somehow are "in the know" while everyone else is incapable of making smart resource allocation decisions. In "Create Marketplace Disruption" I provide a long discussion about how introducing "professional management' causes companies to enter growth stalls. The very act of saying "gee, we could be more efficient about how we manage innovation" immediately applies braking power well beyond what was imagined. If Mr. Anthony were worried about Google managers leaving to start new companies in the past (like Twitter) he should be apoplectic at the rate they'll now leave – when it's harder to get management attention and funding for new potentially disruptive innovations.
Google is doing a great job of innovating. Largely because it doesn't try to manage innovation. It maintains robust pipelines of both disruptive, and sustaining, innovations. Google allows everybody in the company to work at innovation – providing wide permission to try new things and ample resources to test ideas. Then Google lets the market determine what goes forward. It lets the innovators use supply chain partners, customers, emerging customers, lost customers and anybody who can provide market input guide where the innovation processes go. As a result, the company has developed several new products — such as new network applications that replace over-sized desktop apps, and a new, slimmer mobile operating system that expands the capabilities of mobile devices —- and we can well imagine that it may be coming close to additional revenue breakthroughs.
Unfortunately, Mr. Anthony would like readers, and his clients, to believe they are better at managing innovation than the marketplace. However, all research points in the opposite direction. When managers start guessing at the future their Lock-ins to historical processes, products and market views consistently causes them to guess wrong. They over-invest in things that don't work out well, and investing for really good ideas dries up. All resource allocation approaches use things like technology risk, market risk, cost risk and revenue risk to downplay breakthrough ideas. Management cannot help but "extend the past" and in doing so over-invest in what's known, rather than let ideas get to market so real customers can say what is valuable.
Google is doing great. In a recession that has put several companies out of business (Silicon Graphics and Sun Microsystems are two neighbors) and challenged the returns of several stalwarts (Microsoft and Dell just 2 examples) Google has grown and seen its value rise dramatically. To think that hierarchy and managers can apply better decision-making about innovation is – well – absurd. It's always best to get the idea surfaced, push for permission to do things that might appear crazy at first, and get them to market as fast as possible so the real decision-makers can react, and give input, to innovation.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 21, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Smartphones will outsell PC by 2011 according to Silicon Valley Insider:
Your first reaction might be "interesting chart, so what's the big deal?" That's the way a lot of people react to news about market shifts. Like the shift is important maybe for the suppliers, but what difference should it make to me? That's kind of how a lot of people reacted to PCs when they came along – and those businesses ended up with IT costs that were too high and processes that were too slow.
Market shifts affect us all. As the number of smart phone users keeps doubling, the number of new PC buyers doesn't. You may not care today that there will be more smartphones sold in 2011 – but if you think about it, you should.
- Do you deliver information across the internet? If so, are you formatting content for access on a PC screen – or on a smartphone?
- Are you publishing information for long-format page views like a PC, or short-format small views like a smartphone?
- Are you planning to continue sending people information on email, or will texting be more efficient and practical soon?
- Do your on-line ads present well on a smartphone?
- Do you print things you should send immediately via smartphones? Could you stop printing?
- Do you have a PC in your family room – and will you need to have one there when everything you want to know is available on a smartphone?
- If you can access 90%+ of your information on a smartphone, will you still carry around a laptop?
- Will fax machines become obsolete? What will that do for land-line demand? What does this portend for maintaining land-line service to your home or business?
These are just a few thoughts about how things could change as smartphone sales grow. There will be more. The biggest risk in this chart isn't that the lines meet in 2011 – but that as we get into 2010 smartphone sales keep growing on a log (rather than linear) line and PC sales don't recover anywhere close to the projections shown here. Realizing that forecasts tend to be wrong by more than 25% as often as they are correct within 10%, we can realistically expect that in 2011 smartphone sales might be more than 500MM units, and PC sales might be less than 250MM units – or rougly double!!! When that sort of impact happens, we see sales fall off a cliff of old technology. Do you remember when every admin had a typewriter – then suddenly none did – like in a matter of months.
So, are you preparing for this possibility? If you did, could you gain advantage over your competition? If you were the first to aggressively plan for, and implement, smart phone technology use can you lower your cost? Better connect with customers? Find new customers? React faster to customer needs? Offer new services? Promote new products?
If you wait, what can your competitor do to you? How could she clip your customer relationships? Lower her prices? Expand her offerings? If you wait, how could you find yourself doing poorly?
This will be a big deal for the technology companies. This shift is the kind of thing that could expose the great weaknesses in Microsoft's and Dell's horribly Locked-in Success Formulas. It also could catapult Apple, Google — or maybe an outside player like Motorola (largely given up for dead) into a leadership position. Positions could change very fast if the adoption rate turns more aggressive. Is your investment portfolio prepared?
We see these kind of charts all the time. But do you do anything about it? Market shifts happen. They obsolete old Success Formulas. They put businesses at risk that aren't paying attention. They create new winners out of companies that aggressively pursue the shifts. We often see the shift coming – but Lock-in keeps us from doing anything about it. Perhaps you need to consider Disrupting your status quo and setting up some White Space to see what you can do to improve your position!
by Adam Hartung | Jul 26, 2009 | Uncategorized
"Is the Party Over for Microsoft?" is the headline at Marketwatch.com. In case you missed it, last week Microsoft reported sales and earnings, and "Microsoft declines on disappointing results" was the most appropriate headline. Sales dropped 17%. Let's see, the last time we heard about a mega-corporation with double-digit revenue declines that would have been – oh yes – GM – and Chrysler.
This blog has been brutally negative on Microsoft for over 3 years. A quick look at the long-term chart and you'll note that the stock has not come near its 2000 high this decade. It's been mired in a go-nowhere range, and has recently broken down to prices last seen in the late 1990s. For investors, Microsoft has been only a disappointment.
But that's because the company has been equally disappointing for customers. Microsoft has been very consistent about trying to "milk" it's near-monopoly in desktop operating systems and office software. Even though the market has moved, Microsoft has done little to move with it. It's applications are "more of the same." It's operating systems have become bloated, and new versions have offered practically no advantages to switch. Meanwhile, customers are learning to enjoy Linux – and Macs again – as well as Unix for servers. There's literally been nothing for customers, investors — or suppliers to get excited about. Ask Dell, itself stuck in the doldrums as a Microsoft devotee.
It's not due to a lack of opportunities in the dynamic IT world. Since 2000 we've seen the emergence of Google, which simply cleaned Microsoft's clock in search and ad placement. The world of digital music became dominant, but that was claimed by Apple. Hot websites for information became valuable – but Marketwatch and HuffingtonPost (examples) are laying claim to attracting lots of readers. Microsoft simply missed these markets. Always late, and never really in step with shifting market requirements. The company tried, failed, and just kept "clipping coupons" from its near- monopoly.
It hasn't been hard to see the market shifting. Customers were put off by Microsoft's disregard for their needs in the 1990s. They searched for better solutions, and found them. Microsoft kept being Microsoft, but the world moved. Now, Microsoft is stuck. And what are they going to do to get out of their rut?
When a company is large, has a lot of cash, and has strong market share analysts are reluctant to predict it will do poorly. But Microsoft has been so Locked-in, for so long, it has been quietly letting all new markets go to new competitors. There have been NO Disruptions to the Success Formula. Windows and Office have dominated the investments. "Taking care of the franchise" has been the mantra. That meant doing more of the same. Which got us Vista – an operating system that was over a year late to market, and very easy to ignore. There hasn't been any White Space to develop new solutions. And as a result whenever Microsoft has tried to do anything new it has been late, with inferior product, a significant lack of knowledge about what the market really wanted, and out of step with new requirements for performance and price.
Microsoft won't declare bankruptcy in 2009 – or 2010. But it's acting just like GM. It's spending all its time trying to Defend & Extend its past. But in fast changing markets, that's not enough to remain viable. In markets moving as fast as IT, it's deadly. Remember DEC? Wang? Lanier? Burroughs? Univac? IBM mainframes? Cray supercomputers? Microsoft is more like GM than it's like Google. Thus, it's future isn't hard to predict. If you're an employee, time to brush up the resume. If you're an investor, time to look for the exit.
Do'nt miss the new ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid It's Mistakes"
